Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Figure 1. Annotation and characterization of genomic target of p63 in mouse keratinocytes (MK) based on ChIP-Seq. (A) Scatterplot representing high degree.
Advertisements

Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
M. Fu, G. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, Z. Huang, B. Yu, F. Meng 
Comprehensively Evaluating cis-Regulatory Variation in the Human Prostate Transcriptome by Using Gene-Level Allele-Specific Expression  Nicholas B. Larson,
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages (April 2013)
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages (July 2017)
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages (March 2018)
High-Resolution Profiling of Histone Methylations in the Human Genome
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (February 2017)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (August 2012)
by Holger Weishaupt, Mikael Sigvardsson, and Joanne L. Attema
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages (May 2018)
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages (July 2017)
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages (September 2017)
Ying-Ying Yu, Ph. D. , Cui-Xiang Sun, Ph. D. , Yin-Kun Liu, Ph. D
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages (October 2011)
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages (December 2015)
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages (August 2017)
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 133, Issue 3, Pages (May 2008)
Mapping Global Histone Acetylation Patterns to Gene Expression
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
High-Resolution Profiling of Histone Methylations in the Human Genome
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages (November 2016)
Genome-wide analysis of p53 occupancy.
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e6 (September 2017)
Volume 128, Issue 6, Pages (March 2007)
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages (April 2012)
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Human Promoters Are Intrinsically Directional
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages e5 (October 2018)
Evolution of Alu Elements toward Enhancers
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages (October 2017)
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages e6 (December 2017)
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 132, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Volume 122, Issue 6, Pages (September 2005)
Volume 66, Issue 4, Pages e4 (May 2017)
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages (December 2012)
Volume 63, Issue 3, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages (August 2015)
Gene Density, Transcription, and Insulators Contribute to the Partition of the Drosophila Genome into Physical Domains  Chunhui Hou, Li Li, Zhaohui S.
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages (August 2010)
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)
Volume 32, Issue 6, Pages (June 2010)
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages (April 2016)
Anne Pfeiffer, Hui Shi, James M. Tepperman, Yu Zhang, Peter H. Quail 
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages (March 2017)
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (September 2009)
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages (August 2015)
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages (January 2011)
Manfred Schmid, Agnieszka Tudek, Torben Heick Jensen  Cell Reports 
Genome-wide Functional Analysis Reveals Factors Needed at the Transition Steps of Induced Reprogramming  Chao-Shun Yang, Kung-Yen Chang, Tariq M. Rana 
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages (December 2016)
Gene Body CG and CHG Methylation and Suppression of Centromeric CHH Methylation are Mediated by DECREASE IN DNA METHYLATION1 in Rice  Hisataka Numa, Katsushi.
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages e4 (May 2017)
DNA Damage-Induced Transcription of Transposable Elements and Long Non-coding RNAs in Arabidopsis Is Rare and ATM-Dependent  Zhenxing Wang, Rainer Schwacke,
Fig. 2 Combined transcriptome profiling, ChIP-seq, and ATAC-seq analysis identifies 14 highly plausible direct targets of Runx. Combined transcriptome.
Presentation transcript:

Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 1168-1182 (August 2016) Identification of Regulatory DNA Elements Using Genome-wide Mapping of DNase I Hypersensitive Sites during Tomato Fruit Development  Zhengkun Qiu, Ren Li, Shuaibin Zhang, Ketao Wang, Meng Xu, Jiayang Li, Yongchen Du, Hong Yu, Xia Cui  Molecular Plant  Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 1168-1182 (August 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013 Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Distribution of DNase I Hypersensitive Sites. (A) Genome-wide distribution of DNase I hypersensitive sites (DHSs) along 12 tomato chromosomes. From outside to inside, the circles represent the chromosome, gene density, DHS abundance in 20-DPA fruits, and DHS abundance in break-stage fruits. (B) Distribution of DHSs in different gene regions. (C) DHS length in different gene regions. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between groups (Tukey's honestly significant difference test, P < 0.05). Molecular Plant 2016 9, 1168-1182DOI: (10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013) Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Expression Level of Genes Associated with DHSs and H3K4me3 Modification. (A) Heatmap of percentage of genes contained one DHS or multiple DHSs in their proximal promoter with different expression levels. The genes were divided into six groups based on RPKM value: 0–1, 1–2, 2–5, 5–10, 10–30, and >30. (B) Heatmaps of DHSs around the TSS region of genes at 20 DPA and break stage. The genes containing only one DHS were used for analysis. All genes were sorted by the length of the DHSs located from −1000 to 100 bp relative to the TSS and then divided into three equal groups according to length of the DHSs: the top includes the longest 33% and the bottom the shortest 33%, with the remainder in between. (C) Percentage of genes with different expression levels in the three groups categorized in (B). The genes contained only one DHS (upper panel) and multiple DHSs (lower panel) in their proximal promoter sorted by the length of DHSs and then divided into three equal groups (top, middle, and bottom) based on the length of DHSs. Green, dark blue, yellow, gray, orange, and light blue indicate genes with RPKM values >30, 10–30, 5–10, 2–5, 1–2, and <1, respectively. (D) Percentage of genes with different expression levels associated with DHSs, H3K4me3, or both (i.e., a concurrence of DHSs and H3K4me3). Expressed genes with RPKM values greater than 0.1 were divided into 10 equal groups based on their expression levels from lowest to highest. Molecular Plant 2016 9, 1168-1182DOI: (10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013) Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Changes in DNase Accessibility during Tomato Fruit Development. (A) Visualization of DHSs in 20-DPA and break-stage fruits within a region on chromosome 9. (B) Specific and common DHSs in 20-DPA and break-stage fruits. Overlapping DHSs (a minimum of 1 bp) between these two stages were merged into a single DHS. (C) Visualization of specific DHSs combined with RNA-seq read densities at three gene loci in 20-DPAfruit. (D) Visualization of specific DHSs combined with RNA-seq read densities at three gene loci in break-stage fruit. (E) Visualization of a common DHS and RNA-seq read densities at PSY1 in 20-DPA and break-stage fruits. (F) Heatmap of expressions of IAA6, IAA11, Solyc02g067380, RIN, NOR, Solyc01g006540, and PSY1 in four fruit developmental stages. Molecular Plant 2016 9, 1168-1182DOI: (10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013) Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Gene-Distal DHSs Marked by H3K4me3 Overlapped with Long Non-coding RNA Genes. (A) Overlapped peaks between H3K4me3 and DHSs. Only H3K4me3 peaks or DHSs located in intergenic regions (>1 kb downstream of TTS and >3 kb upstream of TSS) were considered to be gene-distal DHSs. The others were considered to be gene-proximal DHSs or peaks. (B) Histone modification associated with gene-distal, permutated gene-distal, and promoter DHSs. The DHSs located from −1000 to 100 bp relative to TSS were considered to be promoter DHSs. (C) Common and stage-specific gene-distal DHSs marked by H3K4me3. The overlapped peaks (with a minimum of 1 bp) in the two developmental stages were merged to a new peak, which was considered to be a common peak. (D) Number of real and permutated common or stage-specific gene-distal DHSs overlapped with lncRNA genes. The permutated gene-distal DHSs were developed from randomly selected intergenic sequences (number and length of the intergenic sequences are the same as the specific or common gene-distal DHSs). This simulation was performed 1000 times. (E) Example of motif found in both break-stage-specific and common gene-distal DHSs. Molecular Plant 2016 9, 1168-1182DOI: (10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013) Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Genes Regulated by Stage-Specific DHSs. (A) Number of genes associated with specific and common DHSs in 20-DPA and break-stage fruits within −1000 to 100 bp relative to the TSS. (B) Venn diagram showing the number of shared genes between those associated with specific DHSs in 20-DPA and break-stage fruits. (C) Visualization of specific DHSs in 20-DPA and break-stage fruits at Solyc04g007000. (D and E) Number of stage-specific and shared genes overlapped with RIN-associated genes (D) and potential RIN target genes (E). (F) The significance of overlap between stage-specific or shared genes and RIN-associated genes (left) or potential RIN target genes (right). Molecular Plant 2016 9, 1168-1182DOI: (10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013) Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 DNase I Hypersensitivity Identifies Regulatory Elements in Fruit Development and Ripening. (A) Expression profiles of the 11 279 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) at different development stages. (B) The six co-expression clusters of all DEGs. The yaxis indicates the normalized RPKM calculated as RPKM/(RPKMmean+0.0001)−1. (C) Visualization of DHSs, cis-regulatory elements, and the expression level of ENO (cluster 1) and PG2a (cluster 3) from −1000 to 100 bp relative to the TSS. (D) Enriched motifs within stage-specific DHSs of 20-DPA and break stage from −1000 to 100 bp relative to the TSS of the genes in clusters 1 and 3. Molecular Plant 2016 9, 1168-1182DOI: (10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013) Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Coordinate Regulation of Ascorbic Acid Metabolic Genes during Tomato Fruit Development. (A) The l-ascorbic acid metabolic pathway in tomato. GPI, glucose-6-phosphate isomerase; PMI, phosphomannose isomerase; PMM, phosphomannomutase; GMP, GDP-D-mannose pyrophosphorylase; GME, GDP-mannose 3′,5′-epimerase; GGP, GDP-l-galactose-1-phosphate phosphorylase; GPP, l-galactose-1-phosphate phosphatase; GalDH, l-galactose dehydrogenase; MIOX, myo-inositol oxygenase; GLDH, l-galactono-1,4-lactone dehydrogenase; AOBP, ascorbate oxidase promoter-binding protein; AO, l-ascorbate oxidase; APX, ascorbate peroxidase; MDHAR, monodehydroascorbate reductase; DHAR, dehydroascorbate reductase. (B) The expression patterns of ascorbic acid metabolic genes. (C) Visualization of DHSs from −1000 to 100 bp relative to the TSS of three ascorbic acid metabolic genes. (D) Predicted cis-regulatory element within the region from −1000 to 100 bp relative to the TSS of ascorbic acid metabolic genes. Molecular Plant 2016 9, 1168-1182DOI: (10.1016/j.molp.2016.05.013) Copyright © 2016 The Author Terms and Conditions